Review of “Hampstead.” One Star or less!

I woke up this morning to the news that the Muslim terrorists have been at it again. This time it was in Barcelona.  What a bloody depressing and horrible world!

So to cheer myself up,  not that anything can really make one feel better after horrific events such as the atrocities carried out by jihadists this morning,  we decided that we should go to a movie. We chose one that would be “a feel good” sort of thing, one that would not cause more angst.

Quite frankly, I don’t really know why I chose “Hampstead’. The reviews of the movie were not good, but they sounded  patronising.  “The older members of society would probably enjoy a film like this” was the theme of most of the reviews. I interpreted these reviews as the oeuvre of some millenials with the shaved haircuts and torn jeans, so I jacked up and muttered.

“I refuse to be patronised by these twits!”

And that’s where I went wrong.

Alas, I should have heeded the warnings, patronising or not. Those reviews were correct.

“Hampstead” is so boring,  poorly cast,  predictable,  badly scripted and overacted that I think it should be compulsory viewing for those terrorists in Barcelona when they are finally caught. Make them watch “Hampstead'” over and over again until they beg to be shot. And then refuse to put them out of their misery, and set the film on continues play

Normally,  the Weinstein Company produces good cinema. Normally, Diane Keaton chooses sensible roles. Normally, James Norton would demand an impressive role such as he plays in “Grantchester”,  “Happy Valley” and “War and Peace.”

I cannot fathom why this film was released. Worse still, why any good actor accepted a role in it.